Stay architecturally enlightened!

DO WE SIMPLY HAVE TO STOP HAVING SEX...?

In August 2009 the editorial of MONU #11 on the topic of "Clean Urbanism" started with the lines "Do we simply have to stop having sex to produce Clean Urbanism..."
— MONU

These lines are now featured on a bag designed and produced by MONU Magazine. The bags were produced in a limited edition of 50 pieces. To get a bag please e-mail your order to bag@monu-magazine.com .

Text on MONU Bag: "Do we simply have to stop having sex to produce Clean Urbanism - i.e. an urbanism that is dedicated to minimizing both the required inputs of energy, water, and food for a city as well as its waste output of heat, air pollution as CO2, methan, and water pollution, Samo Pedersen asks in his piece “Sci-fi greenery..or just Responsibility?”. In fact Randall Teal sees the growing world population frequently ignored in discussions on sustainability, as he points out in his article “Coming Clean: Owning Up to the Real Demands of a Sustainable Existence”. Fewer people spend less energy, and as the gas and oil supply will come to an end sooner or later, saving energy may be a cheaper and smarter solution for cities than depending on renewable energies, as Gerd Hauser, one of the leading researchers on the implementation of the EU Directive on Energy Performance of Buildings, explains in an interview with us, entitled “Domes over Manhatten”..."

4 Comments

Jan 26, 12 10:05 am

Most sex is not for procreation so, no, it need not be stopped.

It would probably be far more effective to start killing children. Particularly the poor, stupid, ugly and crippled ones. That strategy would be much more effective for a "sustainable" & humane future, yo!

Oh my god, really?! These people have never heard of birth control or any other kind of sex that does not involve penis in vagina penetration?!? What a huge world of fun they are missing out on!!!

OK, all kidding aside - while acknowledging that I'm totally NOT kidding about the myriad possibilities for non-preocreative sex - we need fewer people. We far far far fewer people, and we need to stop the exponential increase of humans on t e planet if we want to take the topic of sustainability seriously.

But implying that sex always must be linked to procreation is irresponsible and plays into a lot of far right-wing christianist notions of sex outside of procreation being somehow "wrong" and procreative sex always being a "blessing". A whole lot of procreative sex is not intentionally procreative - in other words, a shit ton of people on this planet were not planned pregnancues - and a serious discussion about teaching/allowing people to plan for procreation SHOULD be a part of every sustainability discussion, not only because it could lessen our use of resources on this planet, but because it could lead to a highly improved quality of life for millions around the globe.

So sorry, I don't find that leading sentence cute or funny, I think it's an inflammatory use of the word "sex" to be edgy but actually promotes a continued lack of critical thinking about humanity.